Taking Sides, or Us Against Them

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Ms.Brainy - 12 Sep 2007 07:39 GMT

There seems to be a "war" here between two camps - the established
"main stream" medical camp v. the "alternative" gang. Interestingly,
usually there are no substantive disagreements within the established
camp, but none of the current main players in the "alternative gang"
agrees with each other. Nonetheless, they are united in their assault
on the medical establishment with all its accomplishments,
relentlessly attempting to discredit and destroy it. They are destined
to fail.

Reply to this Message

otisbrown@pa.net - 12 Sep 2007 15:37 GMT

Dear Brainy,

Subject: Your analysis is simplistic -- at best.

Re: But you do have some good points -- that should be
understood for the person seeks a scientific understanding
of the fundamental eye's dynamic behavior (proven).

More commentary:

> There seems to be a "war" here between two camps - the established
> "main stream" medical camp v. the "alternative" gang.

Otis> I would not call it a "war". I would call it a search for
a preventive method.

Brain> Interestingly,

> usually there are no substantive disagreements within the established
> camp,

Otis> It is profoundly easy to place a -1 diopter lens on
a child's eyes (AFTER) he induces a negative refractive
STATE by HIS OWN ACTIONS. The minus is impressive,
and -- as you say -- very few people "want" anything else.
Further, by keeping "silent" the person is lead to believe
that there is NO ALTERNATIVE. Further, there is
no "discussion" either. Very easy indeed. No argument
about THAT issue.

but none of the current main players in the "alternative gang"

> agrees with each other.

Otis> You hit a "home run" with that statement!!!

Brain> Nonetheless, they are united in their assault

> on the medical establishment ...

Otis> Not true! I support the PREVENTIVE second-opinion,
with the parent reviewing these issues BEFORE that first
minus lens is applied. See:

www.chinamyopia.org

Otis> But with the understanding that the parent (and child) must
either start with prevention -- or drop the subject PERMANENTLY,
for life. This is NOT an attack on anyone -- only a matter
of providing scientific information to the person.

Brainy>with all its accomplishments,

> relentlessly attempting to discredit and destroy it.

Otis> False. See the second-opinion concept by Steve Leung OD.
I am simply supporting the supply of accurate information -- that
can be understood and accepted -- or rejected. This is not
"destruction" -- but an education.

Brainy> They are destined to fail.

Otis> Your majority-opinion -- of course.

Otis

Reply to this Message

Neil Brooks - 12 Sep 2007 15:48 GMT

On Sep 12, 7:37 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

[snipped for charity and mercy]

Still a pathological liar and a f.cking idiot, I see, Uncle Otie?

Reply to this Message